Are We Abusing Our Free-Speech Rights Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Are We Abusing Our Free-Speech Rights - Essay Example This fundamental freedom must be continually fought for in every medium and circumstance if the nation is to remain the shining beacon of liberty for the world. The constant battle for the preservation of free speech has most recently been enjoined concerning the unabated flow of information on the internet. The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) ruled that radio and television was exempt from First Amendment protection therefore must comply with arbitrary content guidelines. Though clearly a legal matter, the FCC gave itself the power to censor the media without virtue of a court decision. Now that censorship has been accepted by the majority, the government is currently attempting to control the internet. The powers that be apparently believes the public is abusing it’s free speech rights. The American public seems to be in favor of restricting online gambling as well as material of a sexual nature but this is a generation that has grown accustomed to censorship by their government and in many cases encourages this unconstitutional practice. A disturbing trend that should end with this generation and the battle ground is cyber-space. The Internet, today’s battleground for free speech The internet itself is not regulated. As efficient and enormously informative as the web is, its content is not overseen as are other communications mediums such as television and radio. It is a groundbreaking new technology that has amalgamated societies of the country and the world and introduced the concept of truly free expression and the perception that nothing is taboo. Everything is exposed and available at everyone’s literal finger-tip. The Internet has no physical, ethical or moral boundaries. Lawmakers and legal scholars generally use legal precedents from broadcast media decisions as the model for definitions of indecency and obscenity when developing regulations governing the Internet. Governmental censorship rational The Communications Decenc y Act (CDA) of 1996 made it a federal crime to display ‘indecent material’ on any computer network unless the website owner utilizes ‘effective’ techniques to control access of that material to minors. This law appears to be a reasonable compromise that protects free speech and prevents children from accessing objectionable material, but in practice and effect, outlaws free speech from the Internet. The Internet allows everyone the freedom to connect with other people and suppliers worldwide but an economical means for individuals to restrict their art or thoughts to the eyes of children is yet to be developed. Because of this lack of security technology, across the board prohibition is justified under the law, a concept that is in itself considered unlawful by a strict definition of the First Amendment of the Constitution which unambiguously guarantees the right to free speech (Pilon, 1994). Supreme Court decisions have consistently found that the First Am endment does not apply to obscene communications and have allowed communities to establish their own restrictions regarding what is obscene. The court in Miller v. California explained that if the ‘average’ person would describe the work as obscene or if it showed or expressed patently offensive sexual conduct without ‘serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value,’ the material is correctly defined as obscene (Mason, 2000). Censoring the Internet is impractical

Critically analyse the territorial and extraterritorial ambit of the Assignment

Critically analyse the territorial and extraterritorial ambit of the offence of murder under English Criminal Law - Assignment Example die of the wound or hurt etc. within a year and a day after the same† (Allen 309). It is imperative to note that under the English criminal system, murder is classified into the category of homicide and manslaughter. Legally, homicide is a more serious offence in comparison to manslaughter. In order for a person to be charged with homicide or manslaughter, the elements of the definition of murder must be proved to be true. Actus Reus Under the English Law, the Actus Reus for murder must be present before one can be convicted for the offence of murder. One aspect of Actus Reus is that act of murder must be unlawful. This implies that act should not have any legal basis to justify its occurrence. Under the English criminal system, the law recognizes some circumstances under which murder can be justified. For instance, killing someone in self defense can be admissible in a court as a legally permissible reason for murder. The justification for killing also depends on the circumsta nces under which the deceased was killed and the role of the accused in the murder (Chalmers & Fiona 219). In essence, killing under English law may include accelerating another person’s death due to an act or an omission. ... This means that any killing that occurs under all circumstances except during war are is classified as an offence of murder. Enemy killing is not justified by law unless it occurs during a war or events thereof (David 453). English Law is precise in regards to the concept of â€Å"Queen’s peace† by expressly stating that all situations except during war are classified as â€Å"Queen’s peace†. Even formally identified foreign enemies cannot be lawfully killed under the pretext that they are outside the scope of the Queen’s peace. It is imperative to that this principle applies both within and outside the territories of the English criminal law. The specific act or omission that results in the murder of a person must have a substantial contribution as cause of death for an accused person to be convicted for the offence of murder. The act or omission and the death must be linked in order for a conviction to be upheld. In essence, the prosecution has th e burden of proving that the accused did more than minimally or negligibly contribute to the death. The contribution of the accused person to the death must be considered substantial in the context of the law (Hirst 229). In this regard, even if the action or omission just accelerated the death, the accused is legally liable for the death. For instance, in R v Dyson (1908), it was held that the defendant was liable for the offence of murder even though the defendant had only hastened death. In order to break the causation chain, it is upon the defendant to prove that the intervening act was the main cause of the death (Cryer 152). This may occur in instances whereby a person’s actions or inactions are part of a chain of actions that can be attributed to the death. It is only an unforeseeable or unexpected action